4 ms·
Replace IBM Quantum back end with /dev/urandom
- pigeons 6mo agoProject Eleven just awarded 1 BTC for "the largest quantum attack on ECC to date", a 17-bit elliptic curve key recovered on IBM Quantum hardware. Yuval Adam replaced the quantum computer with /dev/urandom. It still recovers the key.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- logicallee 6mo agobut does the quantum hardware do it any faster?
- petterroea 6mo ago> The author's own CLI recovers every reported private key at statistically indistinguishable rates from the IBM hardware runs.
- xienze 6mo agoI think that means success rate, not speed.
- derangedHorse 6mo ago> takes each shot's (j, k, r) and accepts d_cand = (r − j)·k⁻¹ mod n iff it passes the classical verifier Judging by the fact the original code does more classical work than the prg solution, and in more practical terms, the fact it makes network calls, I'd say the quantum-integrated code is a lot slower for this set of problems. src: https://github.com/GiancarloLelli/quantum/blob/7925f6ec5b57f185d865eae71ea356c31965e8ad/projecteleven.py#L264-L282 https://github.com/GiancarloLelli/quantum/blob/7925f6ec5b57f...
- dogma1138 6mo agoJust to point it out this isn’t a jab at QC but rather a jab at project 11 and possibly the submission author, basically they failed to validate the submission properly and the code proves that the solution is classical. Recovering a 17bit ecc key isn’t a challenge for current classical computers via brute force.
- logicallee 6mo agoif the solution is faster than random it could still be a real solution on a quantum computer.
- amoshebb 6mo ago“recovers every reported private key at statistically indistinguishable rates from the IBM hardware runs.”
- __float 6mo agoDid that mean success rate from multiple runs or speed for a single run?
- NewsaHackO 6mo agoOK, so what I don't get is that from the GitHub page, it seems like that statement is purposely misleading. For the 17-bit key, the quantum computer correctly recovered the key in it's single run, while urandom used 2/5 runs. At 5 runs, I don't think one could say the quantum calculation is definitely better with any confidence, but the reverse should also be true; he hasn't actually proven that urandom performed at an equivalent rate to the quantum calculation. The only thing I can think of is if he is saying that the original group should have done more runs on the quantum computer to prove it. But from the framing he is using, seems like he is disingenuously declaring that the quantum computer is equivalent to a random number generator.
- swiftcoder 6mo ago> seems like he is disingenuously declaring that the quantum computer is equivalent to a random number generator He's not such a declaration - he is saying that the program is constructed in such a way that the quantum computer is irrelevant to the solution
- iberator 6mo ago[flagged]
- wasting_time 6mo agoDidn't Google recently report a verifiable quantum advantage? https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/research/quantum-echoes-willow-verifiable-quantum-advantage/ https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/research/qu...
- josefx 6mo agoDont they report an advantage based on simulating quantum effects every other year? I was promissed a quick way to decrypt my old harddrives decades ago, can we have that at some point before the sun burns out?
- IshKebab 6mo agoThe funny thing is we already have PQC so even if quantum computing works, it will be immediately irrelevant. At least for breaking crypto, which seems to be its headline feature. Maybe there are other useful things it can do?
- somenameforme 6mo agoI expect they're just banking on getting their investment back with some fat returns by licensing it to the NSA to decrypt their hoovered up encrypted coms, with their data storage now reaching up to the yottabyte level. That's a lotta byte.
- mistercow 6mo agoAre your old hard drives encrypted using asymmetric cryptography? If not, I'm not sure who made you that promise.
- PunchyHamster 6mo agoOn what? They can't run it against anything real
- dlcarrier 6mo agoA 17 bit key has 131072 possibilities, which is trivially easy to brute force. Defeating it with a quantum computer is still very much a physics demonstration, and not at all attempting to be a useful computing task.
- arcfour 6mo agoPerhaps I'm ignorant, but isn't the idea that you can do it faster than brute force? If the results are statistically identical to guessing then it seems like you've just built a Rube Goldberg contraption.
- tsimionescu 6mo agoThe point here is that the quantum computer component of the original solution is not doing anything - that the algorithm being run overall is not actually a quantum algorithm, but a classical probabilistic algorithm. If the quantum computer were a key component of the solution, replacing it with an RNG would have either no longer yielded the right result, or at least would have taken longer to converge to the right result. Instead, the author shows that it runs exactly the same, proving all of the relevant logic was in the classical side and the QC was only contributing noise.
- nkrisc 6mo agoBut if the QC’s contribution is indistinguishable from that of a random number generator, then what is being demonstrated?
- pseudohadamard 6mo agoQuantum peddler grifting, I think.
- Strilanc 6mo agoThis was exactly the premise of my sigbovik April Fool's paper in 2025 [1]: for small numbers, Shor's algorithm succeeds quickly when fed random samples. And when your circuit is too long (given the error rate of the quantum computer), the quantum computer imitates a random number generator. So it's trivial to "do the right thing" and succeed for the wrong reason. It's one of the many things that make small factoring/ecdlp cases bad benchmarks for progress in quantum computing. I warned the project11 people that this would happen. That they'd be awarding the bitcoin to whoever best obfuscated that the quantum computer was not contributing (likely including the submitter fooling themselves). I guess they didn't take it to heart. [1]: https://sigbovik.org/2025/proceedings.pdf#page=146 https://sigbovik.org/2025/proceedings.pdf#page=146
- pseudohadamard 6mo agoYou wrote that? Nice piece of work! Came here to post exactly this, that's the sigbovik paper in practice. I'm still waiting for the Quantum Bogosort version of this "factorisation". For those not familiar with the algorithm, it relies on the many-worlds interpretation and is: Shuffle the list randomly If the list is sorted, stop If it isn’t sorted, destroy the entire universe Adaptation of this algorithm to factorisation is left as a homework exercise for the student.
- cwillu 6mo agoMinor optimization: it is sufficient to merely destroy the user.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- jjcm 6mo agoTruly an unfortunate thumbnail crop for this story: https://image.non.io/b3f69546-aeb3-48c3-a76d-723f29b28f48.webp https://image.non.io/b3f69546-aeb3-48c3-a76d-723f29b28f48.we...
- NetOpWibby 6mo agoThis is fantastic
- NooneAtAll3 6mo ago> contains the code and submission perfection
- functionmouse 6mo agoyucky
- goodmythical 6mo agoNot sure if we're looking at the same thing, but surely that's the 't' in 'quan(tumslop)'?
- lynndotpy 6mo agoYes, but the t looks like a c, making it read like a "slop" of a sexual bodily fluid.
- throw1234567891 6mo agoIt looks like what you want to see it look like. The hungry thinks of the bread.
- pseudohadamard 6mo agoGet your mind out of the gutter! You're blocking my periscope.
- neuroelectron 6mo ago[flagged]
- NooneAtAll3 6mo agodoes the number of calls to "QM" match between the implementations?
- oncallthrow 6mo agoShame that this report is LLM-generated slop.
- woohin 6mo ago[dead]
- jMyles 6mo agoPasting my comment from the other article here - curious to understand the degree to which I'm understanding this. ---- The article itself is maddeningly vague on exactly what happened here. At first blush, it looks like the quantum computer was just used to generate random noise? Which was then checked to see if it was the private key? Surely that can't be. The github README [0] is quite extensive, and I'm not able to parse the particulars of all the sections myself without more research. One thing that caught my eye: "The key insight is that Shor's post-processing is robust to noise in a way that raw bitstring analysis is not." "This result sits between the classical noise floor and the theoretical quantum advantage regime. At larger curve sizes where n >> shots, the noise baseline drops below 1% and any successful key recovery becomes strong evidence of quantum computation." So... is one of the main assertions here simply that quantum noise fed into Shor's algorithm results in requiring meaningfully fewer "shots" (this is the word used in the README) to find the secret? Someone help me understand all this. Unless I'm missing something big, I'm not sure I'm ready to call this an advancement toward Q-Day in any real-world sense. 0: https://github.com/GiancarloLelli/quantum https://github.com/GiancarloLelli/quantum
- croemer 6mo agoCommit history looks vibe coded doesn't it? Don't read too much into anything you see there. It's what Claude or Codex wrote after being asked to solve the challenge.
- int32_64 6mo ago"quantum grifting" has hit the cryptocurrency space brutally. Scammers can take an old defunct coin or create a new one, buy up/create supply, strap ML-DSA on to it, and pump their shitcoin claiming it's quantum safe, then they can unload. Eventually low information retail will get wise to this, I honestly don't know who this even works on right now.
- yieldcrv 6mo agoIt’s English as a Second Language crowds and it’s sad
- api 6mo agoThey are missing the point though. The point is not even to be faster but to show that the QC is QCing. It can be slower than random search, and in fact might be expected to be. It’s kind of like early fusion plasma experiments that required vastly more energy than you got from fusion. We are still doing science and engineering experiments, not making production anything.
- delfinom 6mo agoYou miss the point of this rebuttal. QC relies on the observed output being statistically significant. This rebuttal is pointing out that Project Eleven only ran the algorithm once. At this point, there is no proof the IBM QC platform is generating anything statistically significant, especially more significant than the performance of feeding it /dev/urandom. Basically, there is no proof this was real quantum computing instead of random noise picked up by the hardware inside the QC. Now to show that the QC is doing anything against this rebuttal, they have it run it a significant number of times and show that it breaks the key a larger amount of times than feeding it a uniform distributed random noise source like /dev/urandom.
- lkm0 6mo ago"dequantization" is a thing and it's a very legitimate part of quantum information research. It's useful to probe if something was truly quantum or just smokes and mirrors, because it helps us understand where the boundary between quantum and classical lies. Another dequantized result from the past days: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.21908 https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.21908
- croemer 6mo agoThe person who won the challenge with this apparently misleading code seems to have absolutely no quantum computing background. He writes this as background about himself: > Technology leader with 10+ years in enterprise software, full-stack architecture, and cloud-native development. Background in computer science with hands-on experience across .NET, Python, Rust, and Cloud ecosystems. Currently working as Cloud GTM Specialist focused on solution architecture and sales engineering. Looking at the commit history, this looks vibe coded: https://github.com/GiancarloLelli/quantum https://github.com/GiancarloLelli/quantum
- bhouston 6mo agoYeah it has vibe coding tells all over it. It was also my first thought when reading through this.
- pseudohadamard 6mo agoKinda telling that an AI hallucination is the best "quantum cryptanalysis" candidate we have.